NationStates

ICly by Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly again.

OOC: This is a reboot of LEO Force Restrictions which attempts to avoid the flaws stated in its repeal. However, neither of the original two co-authors wanted their names attached to this. (This is because they're busy IRL and haven't really been able to help out in practice, not because they've disavowed the idea.)

Police Accountability Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human sapient and civil rights.

Category: Civil Rights

Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

Concerned that there currently exists no universal standard to regulate the use of force by law enforcement officers on duty in member states,

Recognising that no sapient right can be fully realised without the right to life, which is often infringed upon as a result of the excessive use of force by such officers, and

Believing that the introduction of such a standard will help protect individuals of all backgrounds (including members of vulnerable or historically marginalised groups) from unwarranted police brutality...

The General Assembly hereby:

1. defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. a "LEO" (law enforcement officer) as a person who is employed by law enforcement in a member state, and is acting in the course of their public-facing law enforcement duties, and
   2. the use of "excessive force" by a LEO against a person as the use by that LEO of significantly more force than is necessary in the situation to restrain and subsequently detain that person,
2. orders all entities that employ LEOs to:
   
   1. ensure, through education and in practice, that their LEOs do not use force against suspected criminals or any other person when the use of less forceful measures has not been ruled out in the circumstances,
   2. educate their LEOs on when the use of force constitutes excessive force, as well as on when the use of those items described in Article d(i) is appropriate, and
   3. regularly review incidents where the use of force was exercised by LEOs to ensure that such use did not constitute the use of excessive force (although this Article does not require the presumed re-review of incidents where a decision has already been made upon review, or where said incidents occurred substantially prior to this resolution coming into force),
3. forbids LEOs from using excessive force against any person,
4. mandates that LEOs:
   
   1. carry for any law enforcement missions for which armed force is likely to be necessary, in addition to any other class of weapon or item they are permitted by the nation they work in to carry, less-than-lethal items intended to help restrain or detain suspected criminals (such as batons, irritant spray and tasers) to that effect, and
   2. wear body-worn cameras, where available in the member state they work in, while in the course of their public-facing duties (except where doing so would jeopardise an undercover law enforcement operation); those cameras must neither be turned off while they are on such duty nor have any of their recordings deleted unless they have been backed up in a secure third location,
5. requires that LEOs:
   
   1. avoid causing death or life-changing injury to any person unless the life or bodily sovereignty of any person (including the LEO in question) is, or likely would be, placed in immediate danger by that person, and
   2. ensure that people they have non-fatally harmed under Article e(i) receive any basic first aid necessary for their survival, where doing so would not cause or otherwise threaten death or life-changing injury to any LEO,
6. compels member states to criminalise the use of force by LEOs after this resolution has been enacted that contradicts Articles b-e, and to punish any entities that continue to employ LEOs that have wilfully, recklessly or negligently administered force in contradiction of such Articles, and
7. recommends that entities that employ LEOs ensure that they are accompanied by at least one other LEO when on duty.

Drafts 1-3 are linked from OP. If anything beyond and including Draft 4 becomes depreciated, it will be siloed off here.

Helloooooooooooo?

Helloooooooooooo!

Tinhampton wrote:in the course of their employment as such

What does this wording achieve?

regularly review incidents where the use of force was exercised by LEOs to ensure that such use did not constitute the use of excessive force,

Does this require that the same incident be "regularly revie[wed]"?

carry, in addition to any other class of weapon or item they are permitted by the nation they work in to carry, less-than-lethal items intended to help restrain or detain suspected criminals (such as batons, irritant spray and tasers) to that effect

What happens if they are in a mission which does not require this, eg investigating a crime scene which is now cleared and entirely safe?

wear body-worn cameras, where available in the member state they work in, while on duty in public (except where doing so would jeopardise an undercover law enforcement operation); those cameras must neither be turned off while they are on such duty nor have any of their recordings deleted unless they have been backed up in a secure third location,

Why only "in public"? This should apply whenever they are deployed in an active mission; or they can just go into a private location and take off their cameras so they can do whatever they want without it showing in these cameras.

compels member states to criminalise the use of force by LEOs that contradicts Articles b-e, and to punish any entities that continue to employ LEOs that have administered force in contradiction of such Articles,

Why does this mandate the exact same punishment, ie being fired? For example, why does a LEO have to be fired if, in an isolated incident, they accidentally turn off their camera while on duty in public? It should be left up to each entity employing LEOs how to punish people who violate Sections b - e. Additionally, does this apply retroactively, ie do LEOs which engaged in acts which violate Sections b - e before this resolution is passed also have to be fired?

If these issues are addressed, I can support this.

The Ice States wrote:Helloooooooooooo!

Hiya. Sorry I'm late but if you'll forgive me, GC was very, very late.

Ice wrote:

Tinhampton wrote:in the course of their employment as such

What does this wording achieve?

It achieves LEOs not being prosecuted, under a law regulating what they can do on duty, for doing those things off-duty. It would be silly to require off-duty LEOs to carry deterrents, wear cameras, or treat people they accidentally injure while playing Sunday league rugby with the lads.

Ice wrote:

regularly review incidents where the use of force was exercised by LEOs to ensure that such use did not constitute the use of excessive force,

Does this require that the same incident be "regularly revie[wed]"?

No. I've clarified this.

Ice wrote:

carry, in addition to any other class of weapon or item they are permitted by the nation they work in to carry, less-than-lethal items intended to help restrain or detain suspected criminals (such as batons, irritant spray and tasers) to that effect

What happens if they are in a mission which does not require this, eg investigating a crime scene which is now cleared and entirely safe?

There are no situations in which less-than-lethal deterrents are guaranteed not to be necessary. Surprise intrusions by criminal actors are always possible, for instance.

Ice wrote:

wear body-worn cameras, where available in the member state they work in, while on duty in public (except where doing so would jeopardise an undercover law enforcement operation); those cameras must neither be turned off while they are on such duty nor have any of their recordings deleted unless they have been backed up in a secure third location,

Why only "in public"? This should apply whenever they are deployed in an active mission; or they can just go into a private location and take off their cameras so they can do whatever they want without it showing in these cameras.

The requirement that cameras be active when LEOs are "on duty in public (except where doing so would jeopardise an undercover law enforcement operation)" is clear. Regardless, this now applies only when LEOs are on "public-facing duties" if the argument that this does not exclude raids was not clear already.

Ice wrote:

compels member states to criminalise the use of force by LEOs that contradicts Articles b-e, and to punish any entities that continue to employ LEOs that have administered force in contradiction of such Articles,

Why does this mandate the exact same punishment, ie being fired? For example, why does a LEO have to be fired if, in an isolated incident, they accidentally turn off their camera while on duty in public? It should be left up to each entity employing LEOs how to punish people who violate Sections b - e. Additionally, does this apply retroactively, ie do LEOs which engaged in acts which violate Sections b - e before this resolution is passed also have to be fired?

Article f's criminalisation provisions only cover "the use of force by LEOs that contradicts" the resolution provisions. It does not criminalise every single act banned by the resolution. Tampering with your camera is not use of force and therefores does not need to be criminalised.

As for retroactivity, this section now says that members must outlaw "the use of force by LEOs after this resolution is enacted that contradicts Articles b-e."

Tinhampton wrote:It achieves LEOs not being prosecuted, under a law regulating what they can do on duty, for doing those things off-duty. It would be silly to require off-duty LEOs to carry deterrents, wear cameras, or treat people they accidentally injure while playing Sunday league rugby with the lads.

I think this is a good idea, but it isn't very clear in the definition. I read "in the course of their employment as such" as being attached to "employed by law enforcement in a member state"; in which case the wording does nothing. You should rewrite the definition so that this is more clear.

Ice wrote:What happens if they are in a mission which does not require this, eg investigating a crime scene which is now cleared and entirely safe?

There are no situations in which less-than-lethal deterrents are guaranteed not to be necessary. Surprise intrusions by criminal actors are always possible, for instance.

I think it is honestly counterproductive to force less-lethal weapons to be carried regardless of need for them. Member nation police forces are more likely to use excessive force if they are forced to carry weapons when they otherwise have no need for them. A qualifier such as "for any law enforcement missions for which armed force is likely to be necessary" (although I just wrote this wording up in a few seconds) would be helpful.

Article f's criminalisation provisions only cover "the use of force by LEOs that contradicts" the resolution provisions. It does not criminalise every single act banned by the resolution. Tampering with your camera is not use of force and therefores does not need to be criminalised.

There is no difference between something which contradicts the resolution and something which violates it. It indeed contradicts Section d.ii to accidentally turn off your camera.
Apologies, it appears I misread the resolution provision; consider my comment above retracted.

I have done both of the things Mage has asked of me.

b. orders all entities that employ LEOs to:

"His Emperor's Government fully supports the proposal sought by Ambassador Smith, however, question part b. What defines an entity? Why not mandate all nations to employ LEOs for the safety of our people? Both are valid questions and should be promptly addressed." - Minister of Justice Sara Mauer

Smith: This is primarily a disciplinary resolution, not an organisational one. If you employ a police officer, you are covered by Article b.

You don't use the word "Police" anywhere except the title

Recognising that no sapient right can be fully realised without the right to life, which is often infringed upon as a result of the excessive use of force by such officers, and

Given my political tendencies, I somewhat dislike the preamble as it's giving me the impression of "Police bad"

Believing that the introduction of such a standard will help protect individuals of all backgrounds (including members of vulnerable or historically marginalised groups) from unwarranted police brutality...

I dislike the "including..." bit in brackets, at what point is someone vulnerable or not? There's some sort of victimhood assumption in there

regularly review incidents where the use of force was exercised by LEOs to ensure that such use did not constitute the use of excessive force (although this Article does not require the presumed re-review of incidents where a decision has already been made upon review, or where said incidents occurred substantially prior to this resolution coming into force),

Review and then what?

carry for any law enforcement missions for which armed force is likely to be necessary, in addition to any other class of weapon or item they are permitted by the nation they work in to carry, less-than-lethal items intended to help restrain or detain suspected criminals (such as batons, irritant spray and tasers) to that effect, and

Can you be more accommodating on this? Herby will turn up with sapient cars and Simone Republic will turn up with bears the size of Belgium.

wear body-worn cameras, where available in the member state they work in, while in the course of their public-facing duties (except where doing so would jeopardise an undercover law enforcement operation); those cameras must neither be turned off while they are on such duty nor have any of their recordings deleted unless they have been backed up in a secure third location,

(1) Depends on technology available if you care about RP, you may notice that I do try if I can (2) what's the recording for in terms of evidence?

recommends that entities that employ LEOs ensure that they are accompanied by at least one other LEO when on duty.

How do you run that line on a significant strength?

Simone Republic wrote:Can you be more accommodating on this? Herby will turn up with sapient cars and Simone Republic will turn up with bears the size of Belgium.

(1) Depends on technology available if you care about RP, you may notice that I do try if I can

I don't see how this is necessary.

How do you run that line on a significant strength?

Significant strength doesn't mean every single clause has to be mandatory. I'm obviously not on Gensec, but I think the rest of the resolution does enough to be Significant.

I'm not opposed to the rest of the above being addressed; the point regarding Section b.iii is especially well-taken.